Response: Connecticut Seeks to Regulate the Catholic Church
I don't talk very often about being Catholic -- well, I mention it a lot, but I try not to be very in-your-face about it, but recent events demand a response from me and my limited sphere of influence.
Traditionally, the Catholic Church is set up thusly:
Each town has a parish (or several parishes, depending on the size of the town). Each parish is "zoned" like school districts, so where you live directly affects where you should attend Mass. (Granted, most Catholics today are a bit like Protestants: they attend the parish that makes them most comfortable and this a-okay with the Church. However, registered population in these parishes still determines what gets built and what gets funding.) This was so clear that in cities like Chicago, with large Catholic populations, you could say "I'm from St. Mary's parish", and people would know the exact neighborhood you were from.
These parishes are run soley by the parish priest. He may form committees to help build churches, and other tasks, but he is directly responsible for the education of the parish youth, the finances of the parish, and the faith and souls of his faithful.
Each parish is under the direct supervision of a bishop, an archbishop or a cardinal. A common misunderstanding is that population determines ranking of your diocese. While that may or may not be true, the fact is that whether you're supervised by a bishop, archbishop or cardinal has more to do with what your diocese has been traditionally known as. Kansas City, Kansas, is an archdiocese. We have two archbishops that are directly responsible for supervising all of the priests in the diocese.
The Bishops in the United States all belong to the U.S. Council of Bishops, which responds publicly to debates about the Mass, and how to handle legislation that the Church disagrees with (For example, earlier this year there was legislation put before committee that would make it the legal responsibility of every health care provider to provide abortion-on-demand. The U.S. Council of Bishops responded that it would shut down every Catholic healthcare provider if the bill passed; a significant chunk of the quality healthcare available today) and generally keeps an eye on the state of the Church in the United States.
However, the bishops are only directly supervised by Rome. The Vatican, and specifically the Pope (in this case Joseph Cardinal Ratsinger, Pope Benedict XI).
So there are very few laypeople involved in the administration of the Church -- at least from the outside eye. The Apostolic nature of the Church depends on this though. The Heir of Peter tells the Bishop of your diocese, who tells your priest what to do -- therefore, everything that you do in your parish is supported by Rome. How can it not be? (There have been a few Very Notable Exceptions in which the U.S. Council of Bishops overstepped their boundaries and then were very much In Trouble with Rome).
Earlier this year, Connecticut proposed legsliation that would seek to regulate the nature of the Catholic Church. It would "force" the Church to be regulated by a council of parishoners, who would hold the bishop and the priests responsible for actions they decide to take. Note: This bill would only affect the Catholic Church. It would be a direct attack by the government on the Catholic Church.
… the current state statutes governing Roman Catholic corporations … were enacted in 1955. SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state’s existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.
-- From Sen. Mike Lawlor, the proponent of the Bill.
For the State Legislature - which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year - to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.
-- Bridgeport Diocesan response
How is this freedom of religion? How is this separation of Church and State? I find it very strange that in a state where they're so for personal freedom (they have long been on the forefront of gay rights legislation) they seek to legislate the Church from the outside.
Naturally, the Church responded. As it has to.
It's the only thing we can do. We rallied our members and people from across the country responded, flooding Senators and Representatives with e-mails, letters and phone calls.
Connecticut responded by having a State Ethics Office investigate the Catholic Church as a lobbying group. Which would also put it directly responsible to the State.
Catholic or Not, this should be horrifying, especially to people who firmly believe in the separation of Church and State -- they have to be separate. The Church should not be under the direct supervision of the State, especially since its already supposed to follow the law of the land and can be prosecuted just like any other defendant under the law, aside from having its own court systems.
I'm praying hard this week, flist. I hope you will be too!
Traditionally, the Catholic Church is set up thusly:
Each town has a parish (or several parishes, depending on the size of the town). Each parish is "zoned" like school districts, so where you live directly affects where you should attend Mass. (Granted, most Catholics today are a bit like Protestants: they attend the parish that makes them most comfortable and this a-okay with the Church. However, registered population in these parishes still determines what gets built and what gets funding.) This was so clear that in cities like Chicago, with large Catholic populations, you could say "I'm from St. Mary's parish", and people would know the exact neighborhood you were from.
These parishes are run soley by the parish priest. He may form committees to help build churches, and other tasks, but he is directly responsible for the education of the parish youth, the finances of the parish, and the faith and souls of his faithful.
Each parish is under the direct supervision of a bishop, an archbishop or a cardinal. A common misunderstanding is that population determines ranking of your diocese. While that may or may not be true, the fact is that whether you're supervised by a bishop, archbishop or cardinal has more to do with what your diocese has been traditionally known as. Kansas City, Kansas, is an archdiocese. We have two archbishops that are directly responsible for supervising all of the priests in the diocese.
The Bishops in the United States all belong to the U.S. Council of Bishops, which responds publicly to debates about the Mass, and how to handle legislation that the Church disagrees with (For example, earlier this year there was legislation put before committee that would make it the legal responsibility of every health care provider to provide abortion-on-demand. The U.S. Council of Bishops responded that it would shut down every Catholic healthcare provider if the bill passed; a significant chunk of the quality healthcare available today) and generally keeps an eye on the state of the Church in the United States.
However, the bishops are only directly supervised by Rome. The Vatican, and specifically the Pope (in this case Joseph Cardinal Ratsinger, Pope Benedict XI).
So there are very few laypeople involved in the administration of the Church -- at least from the outside eye. The Apostolic nature of the Church depends on this though. The Heir of Peter tells the Bishop of your diocese, who tells your priest what to do -- therefore, everything that you do in your parish is supported by Rome. How can it not be? (There have been a few Very Notable Exceptions in which the U.S. Council of Bishops overstepped their boundaries and then were very much In Trouble with Rome).
Earlier this year, Connecticut proposed legsliation that would seek to regulate the nature of the Catholic Church. It would "force" the Church to be regulated by a council of parishoners, who would hold the bishop and the priests responsible for actions they decide to take. Note: This bill would only affect the Catholic Church. It would be a direct attack by the government on the Catholic Church.
… the current state statutes governing Roman Catholic corporations … were enacted in 1955. SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state’s existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds.
-- From Sen. Mike Lawlor, the proponent of the Bill.
For the State Legislature - which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year - to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.
-- Bridgeport Diocesan response
How is this freedom of religion? How is this separation of Church and State? I find it very strange that in a state where they're so for personal freedom (they have long been on the forefront of gay rights legislation) they seek to legislate the Church from the outside.
Naturally, the Church responded. As it has to.
It's the only thing we can do. We rallied our members and people from across the country responded, flooding Senators and Representatives with e-mails, letters and phone calls.
Connecticut responded by having a State Ethics Office investigate the Catholic Church as a lobbying group. Which would also put it directly responsible to the State.
Catholic or Not, this should be horrifying, especially to people who firmly believe in the separation of Church and State -- they have to be separate. The Church should not be under the direct supervision of the State, especially since its already supposed to follow the law of the land and can be prosecuted just like any other defendant under the law, aside from having its own court systems.
I'm praying hard this week, flist. I hope you will be too!